this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2025
148 points (99.3% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
6350 readers
1 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, but animals require significantly more resources. You can grow plants to eat, or you can grow plants for a cow to eat and then eat it. The amount of energy that reaches the consumer is significantly lower for animals per unit of production required to make it. The only reason it isn't more expensive is because it's heavily subsidized.
Sure, it's more complex than just that animals have to consume energy to live, but it's simple enough that we know the answer to the question. If we focus on plants that are best for humans to consume, it's trivial to see that feedings animals to eat wastes resources.
You're making a staw man. Growing crops that create scraps that we can't eat is partially only done because of subsidization of those crops to feed animals. Also, we can eat the most nutritious parts. The cob and stalk of corn are not rich in energy. Sure, cows can eat them, but they have to consume a ton of them.
If we grow crops for humans to consume, we get significantly more energy out of it than if we grow food for animals. This is trivial. Argue against this if you're going to argue. Don't argue against something else that's not relevant.
If only that were true...